Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:EdBot

2008-04-14T19:35:02Z

Exp: /* Things for EdBot to chew on */

<center><big>If you are a fan of EdBot, please put <nowiki>{{User CPLeader|EdBot}}</nowiki> on your userpage. When EdBot inevitably takes over the world, he will show you favor.</big></center>
 

This user is a vandal and should be blocked for 25 years. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:21, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:LOLOLOLOL :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:25, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

::PLS DO NOT BLOCK ME. I AM ROBOT MADE BY USER ED POOR. --[[User:EdBot|EdBot]] 22:06, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Don't worry. I'll watch over you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:06, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

==Changing categories==

EdBot is going to change one article's category per minute, from [[:category:biography]] to [[:category:biographies]]. If I see any comment here I will stop the bot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:22, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

: Wheee - look at EdBot go! :) Good job - [[User:Taj|Taj]] 17:54, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks. It took a lot of work to figure out how to log in and edit, but I think it was worth it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:56, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

==Speed of the bot==

I'm going to let EdBot make 5 changes per minute, if there are no objections. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:07, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:Two a minute is enough. There's no hurry. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:26, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
::I object. Please speed up Edbot. Perhaps 10 per minute? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 19:50, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

As you wish. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:15, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== bot ==

Ed, is it possible for your bot to create stub articles like some bots on wikipedia do? Such as ones like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8425_Zirankexuejijin this] created by ClueBot II? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 19:56, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:Do we need that kind of stub article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:02, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
::Well, no not that kind. But could it create meaningful stub articles? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 20:03, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:Like what? I'm open to suggestions, now that I've created the basic framework. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:04, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
::I don't really know. There has to be some solid sort of stub that can be created by a bot, stubs on cities or whatnot. I was just wondering if you had the skillz - not that I ever doubted you did :) Its just been so long without a bot on cp. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 20:07, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, if you have a database of information that we need to put into article form, I can do that now. I was thinking of letting EdBot be on my team, next time there's a contest. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:30, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Is it possible it could be used to create a lot of stubs for Hindu, Celtic, Norse etc. deities?

like this

<nowiki>{{subst:PAGENAME}}</nowiki> is a god in <nowiki>[[</nowiki>[[Hindu]]<nowiki>]]</nowiki> <nowiki>[[</nowiki>[[mythology]]<nowiki>]]</nowiki> [[[[:Category:Hindu Deities]]]]

-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 17:23, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

:If a consensus develops that we need lots of stubs for pantheistic deities '''other than [[God]]''' I can certainly do it, but I think stuff like that is best kept in a single page. One line per [[deity]] is fine. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:05, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Book of Mormon figures, or ethnicites, then? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 22:48, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== Things for EdBot to chew on ==

* [[:Category:Political people]] --> [[:Category:Political People]]
*:Started. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
*:Finished, except for Francis Fu kuyama (spam filter on F*k) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:34, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
* [[:Category:Wiki]] --> [[:Category:Wikis]]
*:Started. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:40, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
*:Finished. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:50, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

*[[:Category:Scottish Towns and Cities]] --> [[:Category:Scottish Cities and Towns]]
*:Done by hand. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:37, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
*[[:Category:United States Towns and Cities]] --> [[:Category:United States Cities and Towns]]
*:Done. Good night, America! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:09, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
*[[:Category:Welsh Towns and Cities]] --> [[:Category:Welsh Cities and Towns]]
-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 22:45, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

*[[:Category:Unit of measure]] --> [[:Category:Units of Measurement]]
*:Started. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:23, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
*:Completed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]
*[[:Category:Political movements]] --> [[:Category:Political Movements]]
*:Started. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:34, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
*[[:Category:Shipping terms]] --> [[:Category:Shipping Terms]]
*[[:Category:United States law]] --> [[:Category:United States Law]]

Delete [[:Category:Snack food]] [[:Category:Scottish Towns and Cities]] [[:Category:Political Biographies]] [[:Category:Flag]][[:Category:Family Guy]] [[:Category:Ethnicity]] [[:Category:Language]] -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 08:54, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:Started. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:59, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
:Completed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:23, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
*[[:Category:Religious people]] --> [[:Category:Religious People]] (Please move the pictures as well)
*[[:Category:Dharmic religions]] --> [[:Category:Dharmic Religions]]
*[[:Category:Political terms]] --> [[:Category:Political Terms]]
*[[:Category:Liberal activists]] --> [[:Category:Liberal Activists]]
*[[:Category:Conservapedia administration]] --> [[:Category:Conservapedia Administration]]
*:Done. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:14, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
*[[:Category:Constitution]] --> [[:Category:United States Constitution]]
*[[:Category:Roman history]] --> [[:Category:Roman History]]
*[[:Category:Political parties]] --> [[:Category:Political Parties]]
*[[:Category:Conservative commentators]] --> [[:Category:Conservative Commentators]]
*[[:Category:Liberals]] -->[[:Category:Essays on Liberals]]

== Wow ==

I don't know who you are, or where you came from, but you edit like a MACHINE! Keep up the good work. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:59, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

PS: Do you have a brother who knows how to sign people's unsigned posts? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:59, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

:That would be [[Wikipedia:User:SignBot]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:05, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, we need a SignBot. It seems even I can't get my signature straight anymore. :) We should call it something cooler like the TrogdorSigninator, or maybe just Signage. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:07, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::How about HelpJazzCan'tRememberToSignBot? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:09, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Works for me ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:02, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Why not simply call it SignBot? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 23:12, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:Or "I am a bot and I am going to sign your posts >:D". -- Mitch [[User:Mitch|U]]/[[User talk:Mitch|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mitch|C]] 23:18, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

I was wrong: at Wikipedia it's SineBot - making a pun on the [[sine wave]]. I looked around for their source code but it wasn't lying out in the open. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:15, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Award ==

For EdBot, this award:

[[Image:Oscar statuette.jpg|150px]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 00:37, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:00, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

NAH! Wha? How? Why he getting the award? That not fair, he '''only''' robot here(I think)--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 10:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

== Recent Changes ==

EdBot's page says how to hide its edits from the Recent Changes page. I can alter my preferences to hide them from my watchlist, but my Recent Changes tab doesn't have any way of hiding the bot edits.

Am I missing something, or should the reference to Recent Changes be to the Watchlist?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:35, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:I think he means on the actual recent changes page, not in your preferences. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:00, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Ah! You're right. I'll update the page to mention the watchlist option also (unless someone else does it first; I'm going out shortly). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:51, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

==Stop Me==

There should be a way to stop the bot in case of programmer error - or simply because you disagree with whatever task I've set it to do. It's too powerful a tool; it needs a stop button.

Maybe I can program it to check its talk page for messages and take "You've got mail" as a hint to shut down. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:16, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

:Hrm... Depends on how smart the "you've got mail" feature is. You obviously don't want just any talk page edit to stop the li'l guy, because then when he gets showered with praise (mostly from Bohdan) or demands (mostly from Deborah) he will stop working. Is he smart enough to look for new changes to his talk page which include a certain phrase, such as "stop EdBot you are ruining everything!!" or some such?

:Another option (I think the bots on WP all have this) is a giant BLOCK ME button on his user page. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:28, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Falsifiability of Creation

2008-04-14T15:40:50Z

Exp: /* six twenty-four-hour days */

== I DEMAND THIS ARTICLE BE MADE ==
Seriously, if you guys say this site is made to prevent liberal bias, you certainly have a lot of bias yourself.
Creation is unfalsifiable, and, just like Evolution, it deserves to be said that neither can be proven scientifically, and no, a single book written by some old guys does not count as proof.

Even if this site is meant to have a Conservative bias, conservative<math>\neq</math>christian. I also think that the [[Date of Creation]] should be heavily edited to reflect that Creation is, like Evolution, an improvable theory.

I'd do this myself, but I am unsure of your conservative guidelines for writing pages and I'm used to writing on [[Wikipedia]] The most reliable source of unbiased, open information.{{unsigned|MarluxiaKyoshu}}

:You have just started off on two left feet.

:First and foremost, you, whoever you are (who forgot to sign your submission), are in a position to "demand" nothing.

:Second, please see [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] before you tell us that Wikipedia is "the most reliable source of unbiased, open information."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 06:44, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

::Already read it, and most of those problems are just vandalism that were never reported enough to be changed, you know, a better idea would be to simply go ''add in'' the articles of people or things you find need to be put there, and while I am a liberal, I will say that though Wikipedia may be considered Liberal, that is because the policy is freedom of content, as in, if there is proof of something, it should be documented, period. They are not Liberal, it's just that liberalism has similar view to what Wikipedia does. their goal is to supply a source of verifiable, uncensored information to anyone who inquires, and that is what they do very well. Conservapedia seems to just censor what they don't like and tout anything even harmlessly bad about the topics they don't like, and 'forget' to mention the good of said topics {{unsigned|MarluxiaKyoshu}}
::: Even on Wikipedia, users are expected to sign their talk-page posts.
::: I've tried "adding in" content to Wikipedia's biased articles. It doesn't work, because the people that control the articles are "liberal" (I'm talking about creation/evolution/ID articles, and they are evolutionists).
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:30, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

==False?==
"If any part of His life did not take place as stated, then the Bible is false. No one has yet shown that the Bible misrepresenta [sic] any part of Jesus' story." Sorry, but hasn't Andrew demonstrated that the Bible is false with regard to [[Essay:Adultress Story]]? Many other sections are disputed too, I understand, by more qualified Biblical scholars. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 07:51, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:The Reverend Professor Keith Ward ([http://www.gresham.ac.uk/text.asp?PageId=25 qualifications here]) - and not a liberal, but a [http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/501/ critic] of Dawkins - for example points out in "What The Bible Really Teaches - A Challenge for Fundamentalists" (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London; 2004 ISBN 0-281-05680-3 p.147): "...in the song of Zechariah, in the Gospel of Luke...[the] prophet blesses God for, he says, with the birth of Jesus God has kept his promise 'to rescue us from the hands of our enemies, and to enable us to serve him without fear' (Luke 1:74). It is false that the Jews were delivered from fear of Roman domination, and allowed to live in peace. The nation was destroyed by Rome within a generation." So what are we to take from that? That the Bible really ''is'' erroneous? Or the Gospel? Or the Gospel writer? Just that section of prophecy? Is there perhaps some ''other'' interpretation of the words? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 08:20, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
::What's false, if anything, abut the Pericopa Adultura is the authenticity of the manuscript. Definite standards exist to help decide whether any given text ought to remain part of the Bible or not. In other words, the dispute with the Pericope is whether it is canonical.
::No one has yet falsified any narrative contained in ''canonical'' text.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:30, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I also have concerns about this article. In principle, it's correct. Practice is not so clear-cut, however. The main problem, I think, is in expecting archaeology to be able to prove that something ''didn't'' happen. Archaeology "proved" (according to the article) that Assyria didn't exist. The same with the Hittites. Now the "proof" turned out to be wrong, and Assyria and the Hittites ''did'' exist. But until the evidence was found, isn't it true to say that Archaeology "proved" the Bible wrong? No, it's not true, because a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. And that's the point: Archaeology cannot really prove that something ''didn't'' happen, so the Bible is not falsifiable ''in that manner''.

There's other problems, but you (hopefully) get the idea. It's not that the Bible is not falsifiable, but that the example ways of doing that are not all good ones.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:38, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

== Bible Prophecies ==

"There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (Matthew 16:28) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]]
(BTW, how do you do that Bible-link thingie?)
: See {{tl|Bible ref}} and {{tl|Bible quote}}. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:04, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

== Encyclopedic ==
I know this probably won't change anything, but I thought I should point out that this article does not look encyclopedic at all, but more like evangelism.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 12:56, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:The notion that "encyclopedic" requires a definition that casts doubt on the veracity of certain facts of history is truly a sad commentary. [[James Ussher]]'s ''[[The Annals of the World]]'' was regarded as "encyclopedic" in its day, and rightly so.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:33, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

=="Best attested figure in human history"==
Is that true? The Holy Bible is indeed the main record of the man, and a large and often well-authenticated book it is, but it is pretty much the only source. (I'm not for a second denying that record). But surely Adolf Hitler, Ronald Reagan or even Britney Spears would have had tens of thousands of different texts about them, by tens of thousands of different witnesses - far more than Christ? I don't disagree with the intention of your point, but there's probably a better, more accurate way to phrase the same point that doesn't contain factual inaccuracies. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 15:52, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:Yes, it's true. Where did you get the idea that the Bible was the only source? The [[Rome|Roman]] historians [[Seneca]], [[Tacitus]], and [[Pliny the Younger]] all talk about Him, His followers, or both. And don't forget [[Flavius Josephus]], either, and remember that he didn't follow Christ himself; he just reported on those who did.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:01, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
::Terry, you should be careful about citing Flavius Josephus. Although he does say that Jesus ''existed'', and led the Jews in rebellion, the part of the document that describes Jesus as the messiah has been proven to be a later addition, forged by medieval Monks. That's the Testimoniam Flavianum, and it's definitely unreliable.-[[User:Madison|Madison]] 16:37, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Interesting Terry, thanks for the response. But even if what you say is true, isn't it likely that more modern internationally famous figures are actually more attested, simply because of greater population, more people in the media, more media, etc? Even with all the authors and commentators you refer to, I'd be hard pushed to think he was more written about, quoted, listened to, reported upon, commented upon than a modern US President? I'm not decrying Him, I'm simply saying that modernity has surely brought more 'attesting' than could have been possible in history? I'll happily stand down if we can find some evidence otherwise, but it'll make for interesting research - if it's even provable. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 17:35, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: I think you've got a valid point, Billabong, except that Britney Spears is not a good example of someone in ''history''. "Best-attested in ancient history" might be better. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:00, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

==six twenty-four-hour days==
I see that this article specifically talks about six 24 hour days. You will be aware that there are other interpretations which count the "days" as being a thousand years long or longer. Would it be appropriate for me to add something bout this? I understand that we're intended to edit rather than talk, but I wouldn't want to start off with a bad edit or simply have my entry reversed. thank you.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 16:33, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:No, it would not. Yes, I am aware that "other interpretations exist." I command ''you'' to be aware that they are flat-out wrong. Nor would a "day/age" interpretation make a bit of sense, for this reason above all: plants are created on Day Three, and no animals exist until two Days later. How could the plants survive? Blank-out.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:09, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

: Tolerance, see [[Creation week]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:03, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

On that point, the article says:
{{QuoteBox|Creation as a concept is not separable from the rest of the Bible. The chief reason is that Jesus Himself attested to it, and attested to the Creation Week as consisting of six and no more than six (twenty-four-hour) days.}}
(This is after I altered it, but didn't change the point that I'm querying.) Jesus certainly quoted from the creation account in Genesis and implicitly attested to the account being historical and accurate, including an ''implicit'' endorsement of the six days (e.g. {{Bible ref|Mark|10|6}}), but I'm sure that He didn't ''explicitly'' attest to creation week consisting of six days. I'm querying what was in mind there.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
::Philip, that quote seems to suggest that Jesus endorses the creation as a ''metaphor'' to defend the permanence, and mystical qualities, of marriage. He's using it metaphorically, not literally; in fact, that seems to suggest that creation ought to be understood as a metaphor to inform the values of the Bible, but that literalism is not necessary to adhere to the law. In fact, in the very next passage Jesus abdicates Mosaic law, an act which, in my opinion, questions the continued relevance and importance of Mosaic law, and suggests that the entirety of the Old Testament ought to be read in the context of Jesus' redemption. If the New Covenant supersedes the Old, ought we not look critically at what still remains relevant from the old Covenant?-[[User:Exp|Exp]] 11:36, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
Furthermore, the power of the metaphor would be undimmed if the Bible were read by the day/age model, or if it were read to suggest that God created the ''souls'' of man and women only, and put them into extant, evolved bodies. So, literalism is not necessary for the law... so I think the "NT requires it" argument ought to die.-[[User:Exp|Exp]] 11:40, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Falsifiability of Creation

2008-04-14T15:38:36Z

Exp:

{{essay}}
Is [[Creation]] a '''falsifiable proposition'''? In the ongoing dispute between [[creationism]] and [[evolutionism]], many have claimed that creation is also an unfalsifiable proposition, the same as is evolution. This is to say that creation ''is'' falsifiable, after all—because the [[Bible]] does indeed make multiple testable propositions, not one of which has yet been shown to be false.

== Nature of the Bible ==
: ''Main Article: [[Biblical criticism]]''
The Bible purports, first of all, to be the very Word of [[God]].<ref>{{Bible ref|book=II_Timothy|chap=3|verses=16}}</ref>{{Bible quote|All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.|book=II_Timothy|chap=3|verses=16|version=KJV}}

"Profitable" means that its use can profit its reader for certain things. "Doctrine" is the Greek ''diaskalia'', teaching. "Reproof" means telling someone that he is wrong, while "correction" means setting the person on a straight path. Finally, "righteousness" does not mean "acting in a just manner" but rather "how to be sure that God has justified you," because no person can justify himself.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10}}</ref>

The Bible, therefore, purports to be far more than a book written by mere men, and different men in different eras.

This very claim is falsifiable, in this way: If anyone can show definitely that any part of the Bible is inconsistent with any other part, then he has shown the Bible to be false. Many have claimed to show precisely that; none have succeeded to date. This is a key test of the Bible precisely because different scriveners set down different parts of it in different centuries, as archaeologists have shown by examining different manuscripts, including the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]] and others.

== Specific claims ==
=== Ancient civilizations ===
The Bible mentions many ancient civilizations that no longer exist today. If any archaeologist can show that any of those ancient civilizations ''never existed'', then the Bible is shown to be false. In the nineteenth century, many scoffers maintained that no such civilization as [[Assyria]] exists or existed. Then archaeologists discovered [[Nineveh]], the ancient capital city of Assyria, and the first of many monuments of that civilization and many of its most prominent rulers.

=== Ancient prophesies ===
The Bible predicts many events centuries before those events came to pass. If any one of them ''did not'' come to pass ''exactly as predicted'', then the Bible is shown to be false. Again, many have tried; all have failed. Many have suggested that the [[prophecy|prophecies]] of the Bible were all written after-the-fact. This ''is'' false; the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]] contain manuscripts of many prophetic works, all of which predict events that have come to pass often centuries later. Never once in any such case has anyone shown that an event did not come to pass.

=== Historicity of Jesus ===
: ''Main Article: [[Historicity of Jesus]]''
[[Jesus Christ]] is the Best-attested Figure in all of human history. If any part of His life did not take place as stated, then the Bible is false. No one has yet shown that the Bible misrepresents any part of Jesus' story.

More to the point, Prof. Peter Stoner at Westmont College once calculated the probability that any one man could, by sheer coincidence, fulfill forty-eight of the more than 400 prophecies about Jesus Christ, written centuries earlier. The probability turns out to be 10-157. That's a 1 followed by 157 zeroes. That's one in ten thousand quinquagintillion, according to the American system of large numbers--higher than the ''square'' of the estimated total number of [[electron]]s in the [[universe]].

== Is Creation Separable? ==
Creation as a concept is not separable from the rest of the Bible. The chief reason is that Jesus Himself attested to it, and attested to the [[Creation Week]] as consisting of six and no more than six (twenty-four-hour) days.

But the direct falsifiability of the Creation story, apart from the rest of the Bible, is closely related to another story: that of the [[Great Flood]]. Perhaps it is for this reason that the central focus of scientific skepticism of the Bible has been on falsifying the Great Flood. The nearest attempt to do so has always been the [[uniformitarianism]] propounded first by Sir [[Charles Lyell]]. But, as has been shown, Sir Charles' assertion that "the present is the key to the past" remains merely that: an assertion. The scientific establishment has attempted to back uniformitarianism (now slightly modified from Lyell's model, because Lyell assumed no "beginning of time") with tools like [[radiometric dating]]. Today the [[RATE Group]] at the [[Institute for Creation Research]] are conducting a key research program to re-examine the entire edifice of radiometric "date" for geologic strata.

== Extraterrestrial life ==
: Main Article: ''[[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]]''
If extraterrestrial civilizations be shown to exist or have existed, whether or not they are visiting or have ever visited the [[earth]], then the Bible is shown to be false and the creation story unreliable. [[Carl Sagan]] and others have tried. None have shown extraterrestrial civilizations convincingly. Of all the [[exoplanet]]s so far found (nearly 200), all have been gas giants, like [[Jupiter]]; none has even approximated the makeup of earth. More stringently yet, the [[Sun]] lies in a "habitable zone" barely wider than the margin between its own peri[[apsis]] and apo[[apsis]] with respect to the [[galaxy]]'s core. Where an ET civilization is supposed to have come from is therefore more problematic than ever.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category: Creationism]]

Talk:Falsifiability of Creation

2008-04-14T15:36:05Z

Exp: /* six twenty-four-hour days */